Thaler's attempts to claim ownership of the inventions in the US were also rejected by the American Patent Trademark Office and the American Court of Law. The ruling indicates that anyone seeking ownership rights for material generated via AI needs to reconsider, as current laws do not support this. The decision provides much-needed clarification in the context of the current boom in AI and its associated products.
Key takeaways:
- Scientist Stephen Thaler's AI-assisted inventions were rejected by the UK Supreme Court as non-human and therefore not under his ownership.
- The court maintained that creative machines like AI cannot be claimed for copyrights.
- The ruling does not provide an answer to the larger question of whether AI-powered machines need to be patented or not, but only to whether this particular inventor could claim ownership of the product.
- Thaler faced similar rejections in the US from the American Patent Trademark Office and the American Court of Law, indicating a global trend of not recognizing AI-generated material as human-owned.